Your biggest problem is using a mud where there's a history of revoking the license.

Somebody revoked a MUD license for developers?

I'm going to make the bold assumption that you're referring to Samson's and my decision that MudBytes is no longer allowed to distribute the codebases we maintain. The initial request for the removal of content came after Samson's forced retirement from Administration here. Since they chose to ignore his wishes and remove the FUSS bases and after the recent debacle with Administrative Moderation, Samson and I decided that it was time that they actually removed the bases from the repository.

We've never once pulled a developers rights to use the codebase. We've only revoked MudByte's right to distribute. And whether you take offense to this, is not my concern, nor do I care.

Yes not only Davion and Kiasyn of MudBytes, but previously Kyndig and Jaelli of MudMagic, and possibly others were requested to cease and desist distributing SmaugFUSS, derivatives like AFKMud and related material, although to my knowledge none of them ever violated any provision of the licenses. The poster certainly deserves to be informed of this before committing to spending any time on a mud server. Rather, if they are looking for something similar, but without the fear, uncertainty and doubt with SmaugFUSS and kin, I'd recommend them looking at ROM, RAM, TBAMud, or CircleMud.

Asshole.

Don't forget to remind them how insecure IMC2 and telnet are!

;)

There's a difference between pulling the right to distribute, and the right to develop. The rights to develop have never been pulled from anyone.

Yes, that doesn't prove his point or anything.

I think the act of pulling the right to distribute adds enough uncertainty that the value of not having pulled the right to develop is undermined.

And I think the whole business is irrelevant to whether or not he's safe using the base or not. He's not a code repository, and he's not distributing it. He's using it. So it doesn't make any difference whether or not there's a history of code repositories doing something to make us think twice about associating our work with their site.

And for the record,

I'd like to see the signed legal document that grants you an irrevocable license signed by myself, Samson, or Thoric. Only then can you call "no backsies".

If you have a problem with things I say on IMC, maybe we can talk on IMC about it. Or over PMs. Not sure why you need to bring your personal issues with me into this thread though.

EDIT: perhaps, if you dislike stuff from IMC appearing on the front page, a more constructive comment would be to ask that the admins remove the front page display, or have it filter out anything with "Tyche" in it…

"pulling the right to distribute" after the fact is different from asking something not be distributed. It's no surprise that some people are going to feel like that adds to uncertainty of the codebase's future. Or it may just leave a sour taste in their mouth. It sounds like any half-baked grudge could result in "pulling the right" to do other things with the codebase.


I'm not familiar with SmaugFUSS's licensing. If I develop my own derivative am I allowed to distribute my work? Even on mudbytes? The whole deal doesn't sound very well thought out.

You need to clarify your terminology. http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/scope.ht...
The classification of users doesn't appear in the license nor in copyright law.
I see it as a arbitrary invention to mitigate the damage caused by the maintainers.
Why wouldn't developers be concerned with how they stand with all five rights?

I have never, and will never, pull any individuals right to use any codebase I maintain without considerable evidence of foul play. And effort will be made to get them to correct whatever violation against the license they've made. With regards to MudBytes right to distribute, It was pulled under the premise that the site was taking a turn for a situation we did not feel was something we wanted associated with our work.



Yes, just because we don't want them distributing our stock work, that doesn't stop you from releasing your derivative work here. They're simply no longer allowed to distribute the stock FUSS packages.


I don't need to clarify anything. MudBytes is no longer allowed to distribute the base. That's not stopping anyone else from asking permission to distribute it on another site, or asking us to distribute it on another site. I must be missing how this affects Unrivaledneo from using the AFKMud or SmaugFUSS code because two code repositories have had their permission to distribute revoked. He's still quite capable of releasing his own derivative works here, or anywhere else.

I think Runter's right. You've just got a sour taste in your mouth and now you're bitching about it to get the taste out of your mouth. Well, continue to bitch, Tyche. Bitch all you want. I'm done responding to you on this issue.

So I can make a small change, name it something like SmaugFUSSmb, and distribute it on the site? I think you missed my point.

There's also a difference between revoking the licenses because of a violation and revoking a license because of a sour taste in your mouth! At any rate, this is all irrelevant. Kayle's ability to upload files has been revoked. And we no longer associate our selves with a maintainer who hordes over a community project to use as ammo against people ;).

My thoughts exactly. But even losing the right to distribute would be enough to neuter your mud - no derivatives, no passing it on if you lose interest, etc. Your mud would become an evolutionary dead end. If I were using said codebase, I would feel as though I had the Sword of Damocles hanging over my head whenever I posted something about one of the copyright holders.

I wasn't aware that any user had to ask your permission to distribute copies of SmaugFUSS. In fact the license is the same as Smaug's license and indicates that any user can make copies and distribute it as long as there's no charge for doing so. Maybe you do need to clarify it.

Edit: I also notice that the most recent AFKMud release removed specific restrictions it had on distribution, those requiring permission to distribute.

I'm sure I'm not the only one confused by this.

Since this sparked a conversation on IMC, I felt the need (since I don't log to the bot for reasons of I have a very dirty mouth and that's not something appropriate to display on the MB Home page.) to clarify.

There seems to be a question of precedence here.

A website that allows user submitted content for hosting and distribution is not bound by the license of the codebase in question because they're not using it. So the questions about the licensing are moot. The issue here is that as an agent of the copyright holder, or as a copyright holder, the right remains to pull that right to distribute if there is any kind of feeling of ill will.

What's happening here is that Davion and Kiasyn obviously misunderstand their legal obligations with regards to the content submitted to their repository. They have a legal obligation to remove it if the author or authorized agent of the author requests it because they don't have a legally binding contract with a signature, or e-signature from every submitter. There's no being nice about it. Checked the rules and such again, and since there's nothing even remotely close to any form of legal e-sign stuff involved Kiasyn's claim is moot.

The objection here is that Samson and I are not afraid to use our rights under copyright law to defend our work however we see fit. And this is unusual in the community because most of the copyright holders are long gone (Diku, Merc, etc.).

The precedent is this.

We (Samson or I) have NEVER pulled an individuals right to use the codebase(s). We HAVE pulled a site's right to distribute. The reasons for that, in both cases have been the same. The admin(s) were acting like complete asshats and we decided that it was detrimental to our project to remain associated with that kind of behavior. As I stated earlier in the discussion, I have not, and will not, EVER pull a users rights without a SUBSTANTIAL amount of evidence of license violations. I WILL, however, pull a sites right to distribute, if I feel in any way, that any sort of harm (either in reputation, or physical tampering with the code) could come to the project by remaining associated with that site.

Also, it's good to know that Davion's willing to punish his users for exercise their legal rights. That's a wonderful way to run a site.

if you keep picking at it it'll get infected